4.0 Article

Effectiveness, tolerability, and impact on quality of life of the 5% lidocaine patch in diabetic polyneuropathy

Journal

ARCHIVES OF NEUROLOGY
Volume 61, Issue 6, Pages 914-918

Publisher

AMER MEDICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.1001/archneur.61.6.914

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: The treatment of painful diabetic polyneuropathy (DPN) is often inadequate and frequently limited by the systemic adverse effects of medications, necessitating the evaluation of novel treatments. Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness, tolerability, and impact on quality of life of the 5% lidocaine patch in painful diabetic polyneuropathy. Design: Open-label, flexible-dosing, 3-week study with a 5-week extension. Setting: Outpatient clinics and clinical research centers Patients: Volunteer sample of 56 patients with clinically defined painful diabetic polyneuropathy of longer than 3 months' duration. Intervention: The 5% lidocaine patch, with a maximum of 4 patches daily for 18 hours. Main Outcome Measures: Change in mean daily pain diary ratings from baseline to week 3. Secondary end points included assessments of safety, tolerability, and quality of life. Results: Patients with painful diabetic polyneuropathy showed significant improvements in pain and quality-of-life outcome measures during a 3-week treatment period. These benefits were maintained in a subgroup of patients treated for an additional 5 weeks, during which taper of concomitant analgesic therapy was permitted. Adverse events were minimal, and systemic accumulation of lidocaine did not occur. Conclusions: Up to four 5% lidocaine patches for up to 18 h/d are well tolerated in patients with painful diabetic polyneuropathy, significantly improve pain and quality-of-life ratings, and may allow tapering of concomitant analgesic therapy. Given the open-label design of this trial, a randomized controlled trial is necessary to confirm these results.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available